In the 1942 case of Stephan v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning double jeopardy and self-incrimination. The defendant, Stephan, was charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S government by making false statements about his nationality in order to obtain a passport. He had previously been acquitted of perjury for lying under oath during an investigation into these allegations. In this case, he argued that being tried for conspiracy after being acquitted of perjury violated his Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy and self-incrimination. The court disagreed with Stephan's argument stating that each charge required proof of different facts constituting separate offenses; therefore it did not constitute double jeopardy which prohibits multiple prosecutions for the same offense. Furthermore, they held that there was no violation regarding self-incrimination as evidence from one trial can be used in another if it is relevant and material without violating any constitutional protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Stephan v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping was a violation of constitutional rights. He contended that such methods were not only illegal but also unethical and contrary to principles of justice and fair play. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential misuse of power by law enforcement agencies if they were allowed to use illegally obtained evidence in court proceedings. He believed this would undermine public confidence in the judicial system and could lead to abuses of power. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's ruling upholding Mr.Stephan’s conviction because it relied heavily on information gathered from an unauthorized wiretap.